Now, before I start I am by no means a science expert so if I've gotten anything wrong then by all means correct me

Creationist 1:Without God none of you would be alive. And don't give me all this crap about evolution. Without God none of you would be alive

Me:You call evolution crap yet I can say with 100% certainty that you know nothing about the subject and are not willing to learn, so by all means take your bronze age world view and do with it what you will, so long as you're fully aware that you're wrong even if you don't believe you are.Not that God and evolution are mutually exclusive by any means. There are plenty of Christian evolutionary biologsts.

C1Ok, just think about this for a second.....It has been proven that when a species evolves it becomes extinct. Since we are thought to be evolved from monkeys, why can we see them in the local petting zoo?Just a question.

Me:>>>It has been proven that when a species evolves it becomes extinct.<<<

No it hasn't. Where is the source for this claim?

>>>Since we are thought to be evolved from monkeys, why can we see them in the local petting zoo?<<<

Because man didn't evolve from modern monkeys. All primates; man, chimps gorillas, orangutans, and monkeys share a common ancestor.Your analogy is the same as saying "I'm decended from my grandparents, so why are they still alive?" It's illogical and shows a deep ignorance on thne subject of evolution.

C1:In every evolution book I've ever read. Try reading The Blind Watchmaker.Ok, you got me there, so explain how sky and land got seperated. I've never read anything about that. Explain how single celled organisms got on Earth, since that is a common explanation for how everything got created. They couldn't have just shown up here in the middle of the "Big Bang Theory"Oh, by the way, pay attention to the word THEORY. If you don't know what it means then that could be a problem in your life.

Me:>>>Ok, you got me there, so explain how sky and land got seperated. I've never read anything about that.<<<

Probably because it's a ridiculous question. The land and sky were never joined so how can they be seperated? Sky is just atmosphere which is gas bound gravitationally to the Earth.

>>>Explain how single celled organisms got on Earth, since that is a common explanation for how everything got created. They couldn't have just shown up here in the middle of the "Big Bang Theory"<<<

What does the Big Bang have to do with evolution? Nothing, is the correct answer. Big Bang is physics, evolution is biology. They have nothing to do with each other. To answer your question, Abiogenesis. Organic molecules bind to create monomers, then polymers which in turn gave rise to RNA then DNA and simple protocells which were subject to natural selction and mutation

>>>Oh, by the way, pay attention to the word THEORY. If you don't know what it means then that could be a problem in your life.<<<

No, clearly you don't know what the word theory means in the scientific sense. There is no greater rank in science than theory. It does not mean guess or idea as is used commonly outside of science.

Also atoms are just a theory, so are germs, and cells and gravity and magnets. Why aren't you tell me these thoings are false too?

C1:Atoms, germs, cells, gravity and magnets are logical. God created them. THEY'VE been proven. And I'm only saying that evolution is stupid, but you've pushed me deeper and deeper into it. I'm ending it, just to keep everyone happy.

Me:No, you're running away like all creationists do when confronted with reason. And for the record nothing has been proven because science deals in evidence no proof. That said evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is as much question over evolution's validity as there is over whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. And we've seen evolution happen which is more than can be said of Biblical spontaneous generation.

The debate then degraded into her insulting me and infering that because I'm an ex-Christian then I must be an unfaithful person and just plain bad.

Creationist 2:the man made fantasy. evolution is a theory like creationism. origins cannot be definitevly proven. logic 101. none of us were there to see it so any claims must be taken on faith. evidence is vital support, but is often ruined by bias. oh, on that note, can anyone explain away irreducable complexity?(pardon the spelling) i always woundered if evolution actually answered that yet. send me a message if anyone knows. i dont think i will be able to find the answer if its posted in heere.lol

Me:>>>the man made fantasy. evolution is a theory like creationism. origins cannot be definitevly proven.<<<

Science deosn't deal in proof just evidence, and all evidence validates evolutionary theory. Creationism isn't a theory as it lack evidence.

>>>logic 101. none of us were there to see it so any claims must be taken on faith. evidence is vital support, but is often ruined by bias.<<<

We've observed evolution. MRSA and Nylonase for example. There is no bias in the scientific method. if something is wrong, then it's wrong. We move on and correct it.

>>>oh, on that note, can anyone explain away irreducable complexity?(pardon the spelling) i always woundered if evolution actually answered that yet.<<<

Irreducuable complexity has been observed nowhere in nature. Ever. It's a ploy by the ID movement to try and validate Intelligent design but it got thrown out with the Dover/Kitzmiller trial.

C2:about the mrsa and ect... what you are describing is "micro-evolution" either genetic defects that are ultimately harmful and result in death for the organisim and the genetic chain, or part of a cycle. like darwin's famous finch. the birds beak changed sizes in a cycle with the seasons, and returning to normal. there has never been a recorded change from one species to another.

while there may be no bias in the method itself there is bias in how we interprit the data we get from it. you say God doesn't exist and that evolution is true, so you see the data and interprit it in favor of evolution. Chrisitans are guilty of the same thing sorry to say. the fact is every person on this planet has a bias and it effects everyhting we do, incluing using the scientific method.

the flagella, for instance. take out any single part of it and the whole thing is useless and would be abandoned by natural selection. similar cases in things like the giraffe. it has valves in its neck so that the blood doesnt rush to its head when it takes a drink. no valves, dead giraffe. genetics too. one piece of genetic code is off and it turns to cancer. cells too. any part of the average cell fails and the whole cell cannot function and dies.

sorry to say not all evidence supports evolution. example: entropy, the odd rotation of some planets, the size of the sun as apposed to the required age of the earth, the complexity thing, lack of dust on the moon, lack of further evolution for mankind, lack of further evolution for any species, the irionic fact that carbon dating can only be trusted for about 6000 years, the fact that any "Evolutionary chages" recorded to date are genetic defects(coparable to cancer), hoaxes, or small adaptations that dont amount to any major change and are quickly reversed, and most of the laws of thermodynamics all go against evolution for starters. then i could get into things like morals and so on. but im tired and going to bed. ill pray for ya anthony. youre a cool guy and i really dont want you to go to Hell(i know you dont believe in it so dont say it). ill pray for GOd to send you someone to talk with you face to face. until then i hope to talk again soon, its preetty fun. May God bless you all:)

Me:>>>about the mrsa and ect... what you are describing is "micro-evolution" either genetic defects that are ultimately harmful and result in death for the organisim and the genetic chain, or part of a cycle. like darwin's famous finch. the birds beak changed sizes in a cycle with the seasons, and returning to normal. there has never been a recorded change from one species to another.<<<

No, respectfully, you are wrong. Micro and macro are the same thing, evolution. Genetic mutations do not happen in cycles and the vast majority of mutaions are not harmful or beneficial but completely neutral and useless. There has been recorded speciation events. Nylonase is a new species, it is not variation within a species.

>>>the flagella, for instance. take out any single part of it and the whole thing is useless and would be abandoned by natural selection. similar cases in things like the giraffe. it has valves in its neck so that the blood doesnt rush to its head when it takes a drink. no valves, dead giraffe. genetics too. one piece of genetic code is off and it turns to cancer. cells too. any part of the average cell fails and the whole cell cannot function and dies.<<<

The flagella example was completely disproved during the Dover/Kitzmiller trial by several biologists.

As for your cells, well to be honest I don't know, I'm not a biologist however I'm sure if you search any peer reviewed litterature I'm sure you'll find plenty of papers on the subject.

>>>sorry to say not all evidence supports evolution. example: entropy, the odd rotation of some planets, the size of the sun as apposed to the required age of the earth, the complexity thing, lack of dust on the moon, lack of further evolution for mankind, lack of further evolution for any species, the irionic fact that carbon dating can only be trusted for about 6000 years, the fact that any "Evolutionary chages" recorded to date are genetic defects(coparable to cancer), hoaxes, or small adaptations that dont amount to any major change and are quickly reversed, and most of the laws of thermodynamics all go against evolution for starters. then i could get into things like morals and so on<<<

Entropy does not invalidate evolution. Thermodynamics doesn't apply to evolution it applies to the movment of heat, not biological process. Even if it did, however it would not disprove evolution as the earth is not a closed system. We get heat and energy from the sun.

The sun, planets...all astrophysics and cosmology. Nothing to do with biology. The suns size has been constant for 4 billions years, what does that prove? There is plenty of dust on the moon. Watch the moon landing videos.

Lack of further evolution for mankind? Are you kidding me? There are several very well documented occurences of new human mutations. There are people in Europe who can see part of the UV spectrum. There are people with a mutation that makes their bones denser and pretty much unbreakble along with denser muscle structure. There are people in Africa who are immune to HIV. How are these detrimental genetic mutations?

Nobody uses Carbon dating to messure further back more than 6000 years. They use radiometiric dating.

If genetic mutations dont serve a beneficial purpose or are detrimental the a species then yes, they disapear because those with that mutation are less likely to survive and reproduce.

haoxes prove nothing other than some people are stupid and some people are greedy.

Thermodynamics, again, disproves nothing because we're in an open system with the sun.

Morals are easily explainable. Altruistic behaviour helps a community to be stable and a stable community more more likely to survive and reproduce whilst a community with unstable behaviour is more likely not die out. Any communal species observes what we would call 'moral' behaviour. Monkeys, apes, merecats, dolphins...ect.

>>>ill pray for ya anthony. youre a cool guy and i really dont want you to go to Hell<<<

If God does exist and is intelligent enough to create everything then he must be a scientist, and I'm sure any objective scientist would relaise that without proof there is no way I would believe in something.

Me:Resen, may I suggest you stop listening to Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, or Ray Comfort or which ever one of those scienitifcally illiterate and unknowledgable fools you seem to be getting your info from. It's the same arguements that have been repeated disproven time and time again, but yet creationsists think that if they say them often enough then they become true by default. they wont.

They resort to the "you're going to burn in hell" thing pretty quickly, don't they?

I guess that's what happens when you're just rattling off a list of stupid and wrong things that you heard in a Ray Comfort video, and that you don't actually understand even a little bit. When someone who does understand what you are saying comes around, and tells you that you're wrong, all you can do is threaten eternal torment from an imaginary friend and run away.

C2my mistake, the girafe is not complexity. but it does show that some tissues would have to present almost from the start. pr in this case it would have to come along at the same time as the longated neck

i brought up entropyand thermodynamics to refer back to the big bang. simply to say that a univers started in chaos would not just order itself. an explosion definetly wouldnt help it.

im not sure about the whole bone density thing but i know that we are aware of other people who are amune to HIV. remeber just because we discovered something doesnt mean it wasn already there.

i never actually meant the hoax thing to prove anything. i am well aware that an absence of proof is not a proof for absence. it just got into the list.

as for the diference between micro and macro evolution, i guess we just differ on that.i know that astronaumical events dont have much effect on biology, these are age references.for the sun.it burns mass every day.one day a bunch of atiest scientist got together and calculated the original size of the sun if it was really bllions of years old. it would have had to hvae been large enough to consume the first three planets in the solar system. the only reason you say irt has been the same for billions of years is because that is what fits into evolution. no one was there to measure it.

the moon had dust but only enough for a couple of thousand years, not millions, and not billions.

for the rotation of planets ect... if all of the matter resulted from one explosion, thermodynamics says that it should all be spining the same way but it just doesnt. and any event like a collision big enough to flat out change the rotation or orbit of a planet would destroy the planet in the process.

you forget to mention the complexity of gentics.

going on with morals you have to explain things like war and why is it good to survive in the first place. looking on the individual basis, many moral behaviors are actually self destructive i.e. taking a bullet for a friend. it is destrucive for a country to go to war be countries offten do so moral claims, misguided or otherwise.

>>>If God does exist and is intelligent enough to create everything then he must be a scientist, and I'm sure any objective scientist would relaise that without proof there is no way I would believe in something.<<<

lol. but i dont think He would be a scientist scince He doesnt need to study anything.Actuall God does sya that we should "study and show ourselves approved before men". Despite what many people have come to think, GOd never wanted dumb blind faith. He wanted faith yes, thats how we are saved. But He gave us a universe to study and He expects us to do so. infortunately man got a little lost on the way. stupid Adam.and I kinda just wish you would take the compliment without the undue sarcasm. no harm done though.

ps i dont recognize the names you listed in the post about who not to listen to, i suppose some info may have come from them. regaurdless i would point out that more and more scientists are agreeing with creationism. not Christianity in particular, they are just admitting that something had to create the universe.

Me:>>>remeber just because we discovered something doesnt mean it wasn already there.<<<

The mutation for immunity may have existed before HIV was passed to humans, that is totally logical. But that still doesn't prove a creator. Intrestly though and a side note, it's hypothesised that many europeans may be immune to HIV because they are desended from those who were immune to the plague in the 14th century. That's pretty cool.

>>>an explosion definetly wouldnt help it.<<<

It wasn't an explosion, common misconception based on the name Bang. it was actually an expansion of space-time.

>>>one day a bunch of atiest scientist got together and calculated the original size of the sun if it was really bllions of years old. it would have had to hvae been large enough to consume the first three planets in the solar system. the only reason you say irt has been the same for billions of years is because that is what fits into evolution. no one was there to measure it.<<<

Actually an 'old earth' theory was presented before Darwin. The sun wouldn't have had to be bigger because it would have had more fuel to burn. it's core which holds it's mass is no bigger, and just because we weren't there doesn't mean we cant messure what happened now.

>>>the moon had dust but only enough for a couple of thousand years, not millions, and not billions.<<<

Where is the evidence for this claim?

>>>for the rotation of planets ect... if all of the matter resulted from one explosion, thermodynamics says that it should all be spining the same way but it just doesnt. and any event like a collision big enough to flat out change the rotation or orbit of a planet would destroy the planet in the process.<<<

Thermodynamics has nothing to do the planet rotation. It's the conservation of angular momentum that determins that, and no planetary collisions capable of chaning planetary rotation would not necessarily destroy the planet so long as enough material condensed to reform the planet. And the big bang didn't form the planets, stellar formation did.

>>>going on with morals you have to explain things like war and why is it good to survive in the first place. looking on the individual basis, many moral behaviors are actually self destructive i.e. taking a bullet for a friend. it is destrucive for a country to go to war be countries offten do so moral claims, misguided or otherwise.<<<

War is rarely based on morallity and more on greed. Yes alutruisitic behaviour is sometimes self destructive but that doesn't mean its not an evolved trait.

>>>regaurdless i would point out that more and more scientists are agreeing with creationism.<<<

Again, I would like evidence for this claim.

C2:>>>The mutation for immunity may have existed before HIV was passed to humans, that is totally logical. But that still doesn't prove a creator. Intrestly though and a side note, it's hypothesised that many europeans may be immune to HIV because they are desended from those who were immune to the plague in the 14th century. That's pretty cool.<<<

they discovered that a common trait for people who are amune to AIDs is white, blonde hair, and blue eyes. i think Hitler had something there lol.

ithe evidence for the moon is on the video recordings. they were expecting enough dust to sink the lander. instead there was inches of the stuff.

i am not sure what an expansion of space-time really intels so i will leave that alone.i apologize for miss lableing the law of angular momoentum, my bad. but please take into consideration the rotation of not just planets but entire galxies.

with the sun, im pointing out that the very claim of the sun being billions of yers old is evolution. i ask for proof of this claim outside of evolution. i will look into the whole sun being the same size regaurdless thing. and i am well aware that old earth came first. unfortunatly the church was and probably still is on a anti-intlectual kick that came about with the great awakenings. the church reacted very poorly to darwin and ironicly increased his popularity in doing so. i am not sure why you brought that up though.

i am afraid it would take time to regather the articles and evidence request.

and destructive altruistic behavior at least does not speak well for the idea of evolved morals, seeing how its well...destructive.

all i have been trying to accomplish is to show that evolution is a theory and so is creationism. if you still dont believe me then i pose one final question. where did the matter for the big bang come from? you would have to say that you dont know. hence a theory not a confirmed fact. all origin theories must start with at least one assumption.

i will now respectfully bow out. it is painfully obvious that niether of us are willing to compromise, and even more painfully obvious that you are more knowledgable than me. probably because i just got out of highschool. if we continued, i am sure that i would run out of material first. i ask that you keep in mind that just because i am understudied does not disprove Christianity. i hope that i have at least shown that not all christians are mindless idiots. i certainly do not consider myself to be so. i think i will leave the group until i am slightly more prepared.

i thank you for this...enlightening... conversation. i see now how much more progress i need. i truly appreciate your calm and intellectual, though sometimes a little over sarcastic, manner. it was a refreshing change from the usual name calling and circular thinking that most people offer up. you are truly the most intellectual evolutionist i have ever met. i think now i am slightly more prepared for colledge. i will be sure to investigate the evidence you have offered. but i promise that i am just as stubern as you are.

i will keep praying for you( whether you like it or not). now, may God bless you all.

Me:>>>they were expecting enough dust to sink the lander. instead there was inches of the stuff.<<<

And they were wrong. That doesn't mean the moon is young.

>>>but please take into consideration the rotation of not just planets but entire galxies.<<<

Gravity. As objects atract they rotate around a common center of gravity called the barrycenter. To conserve angular monetum within the system all objects totate the smae way unless acted upon by an external force.

>>>with the sun, im pointing out that the very claim of the sun being billions of yers old is evolution. i ask for proof of this claim outside of evolution.<<<

Evolution is biology. Stars are physics and astrophyics. Physics has nothing to do with evolutionary theory because it is purely a biological process.

>>>and destructive altruistic behavior at least does not speak well for the idea of evolved morals, seeing how its well...destructive.<<<

So long as the species continues it can be as destructive as it likes. The altruistic imperitive for a mother to protect her children may means the mother dies, but the offspring might well survive and reproduce themselves.

>>>where did the matter for the big bang come from? you would have to say that you dont know. hence a theory not a confirmed fact. all origin theories must start with at least one assumption.<<<

You're very correct, we don't know. But we have hypothises. M-theory for example.

>>>i will now respectfully bow out. it is painfully obvious that niether of us are willing to compromise, and even more painfully obvious that you are more knowledgable than me.<<<

I'm not saying God does not exist, I'm merely saying that the universe can work perfectly well without one. if you want to learn more about the subjects then there are some great resouces out there. There are many easy to understand videos on youtube made by very learned people. Thunderf00t, andromedaswake, donexodus, extantdodo, aronra to name few. Theres also http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/ which is a great forum debating religion and science.

Ha, well I can't blame the guy. I was typing so fast trying to get replies in that I ruined a few perfectly good words myself.

I'll say this for the guy, at least he was civil, which is more than can be said for the first creationist. She was slightly mental. But yeah he was open to learning, and I did link him here, talkorigins and to the youtube greats so if he wants to learn then he can. Hopefully he will.

Good responses.Brainwashed parrots. Totally incapable to do some thinking and researching on their own instead of repeating all those moronic clichés.

one day a bunch of atiest scientist got together and calculated the original size of the sun if it was really bllions of years old. it would have had to hvae been large enough to consume the first three planets in the solar system. the only reason you say irt has been the same for billions of years is because that is what fits into evolution. no one was there to measure it.

Astrophysics for dummies:

Solar energy output per second: E = 3.86 x 10^26 Watt.

Equivalent mass loss per second, using E = mc^2: m = 4.3 x 10^9 kg/s.

Solar mass loss in 4.5 billion years: M_loss = 6.1 x 10^26 kg.

Current solar mass: M_tot = 1.99 x 10^30 kg.

Ratio mass loss/current mass: M_loss / M_tot = 0.000307.

Significance: nil, nada, nothing, zilch, zero.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

This specific YEC apparently came to God via the AA. According to her God is required for a happy life, and all atheists are unfulfilled, ammoral and have severe father issues. The universe is evidence of god according to her, and all human knowledge is flawed). She also lacks the ability to answer hypothetical questions and she's also a 9/11 conspiracy nut. So yeah, entertaining.

I have accepted Christ as my savior, and that's the only way to heaven. Read the bible.

Proof, I have said a thousand times is all around you.. life, love and the creations of the world.

By the way, what do you think keeps the earth spinning? Or starting it spinning in the first place?... think about it...

As Mark has already stated it the conservation of angular momentum.

When the planets were formed they begin to spin in the same direction as the accretion disk from which they were formed.

Jupiter has 99% of the angular momentum of the solar system, while the Sun (despite being the biggest thing in the Solar System) has 0.5%. This is because Jupiter is so massive but takes so little time to spin of it's axis. it's twice the size of all the planets combined yet takes only 10 hours to rotate once.

2 have retrograde rotatations though, Venus and Uranus. This is due to massive impacts which turn Venus upside down and Uranus on it's side.

the official explanation of the spin is that there is nothing to stop it from spinning.. not a very good explanation.

Actually it is a good explanation because it's true. What is there to stop planets from spinning in a frictionless environment?

what is there to keep it spinning?

We just told you, the conservation of angular momentum.

sounds like you are grasping at straws...

Well why don't you enlighten me and the Astrophysics community then. What keeps the world spinning?

what causes the waves to receed back into the ocean? angular momentum?

Tides are caused by the gravity of the moon pulling on the ocean. Once the moon is no longer directly overhead the tide receeds because there is no longer anything pulling on the water.

So yeah, in a manner of speaking it is angular momentum because the world spins and the moons gravity cannot effect wtare on the side of the earth facing away from the moon.

This is basic stuff, how can you not know this? I learned this stuff when I was 6.

Tides are a little more complex than that (otherwise there would only be a high tide once a day), but I guess you have to oversimplify things a little for people with the scientific undertanding of a creationist.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." - Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Total: 3.1 x 10^43. So Jupiter's orbital angular momentum is about 60% of the solar system. In addition, there's indeed the angular momentum due to spin:

Sun: 1.1 x 10^42Jupiter: 6.9 x 10^38

Those are simplified figures (mass x radius x rotation speed). In reality, the precise mass density per radius should be used, which leads to lower figures. I think the solar angular momentum is about 2% of the entire solar system.

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Robert McCloskey

I dont need to read Wiki to learn something new about this.I know that humans are not apes.One only has to ask a child to get an answer.

Children are very much uneducated in genetics and taxonomy. Why would you even ask a child this?

Humans are apes. It's a fact, live with it. If you disagree with this then you also disagree that man is a vertabrate mammal with cells that are contained in a membrane because it's the same classification process.

No animals are morally responsible.No animals wear clothes.No animals have articulate speech,No animals get marriedNo animals have civil lawNo animals have languageNo animals have art, music, education etcNo animals are atheists or christiansNo animals are sinners before GodNo animals were saved by faith in Christ

Ignoring the fact that HUMANS ARE ANIMALS, I'll refute these points.

Many social animals are. Moral actions are defined as actions that benefit a population or group, many apes are moral by this definition as are other communal animals.

Irrelevent.

Clothes are not indicitve of intelligence.

Speech by human standards, no. But speech is not the only form of communication.

Many animals pair for life.

Morality exists in other species so does consequences of detremental actions.

Human language, no. But again, our language is not the only form of communication.

That we know of.

Irrelevent.

Irrelevent.

Irrelevent.

The reason why l posted this list is that it pretty well describes all the ways in which God has intervened in human history.Without Gods intervension there would be no...

PS let me know when the first chimp gets his BA and then l will listen.

Non sequitur.

The fact that man is highly intelligent and moreso than other apes doesn't mean that we aren't apes.

If a chimp hit you and hurt you would you call the police and prosecute him?

No, because I'm not a moron. I very much doubt I'd do that if a human hit me.

Why wouldnt you prosecute?

Come on say it....Ill say it for you...Because you cannot prosecute an animal. They are NOT morally responsible.

Because the rules of our society apply to our species, not chimps.

Because you cannot prosecute an animal. They are NOT morally responsible.Anthony.

You said it - Praise the Lord.

Now why is that l wonder. UMMMMMBecause they are animals? NOT humans.

Humans are animals. An animal is any organism that isn't bacteria, plant or fungi. Humans fall under this catagory.

The rules of society don't apply to chimps because chimps are not part of society. It's really quite simple.

heres a challenge for you.

Walk down the street tomorrow with no clothes on and when you get arrested just say I'm an ape, I dont need clothes.

Let us know how you get on OK.

No, because I'm part of society therefore societies rules apply to me and public nudity is mostly against the law. You seem to be having trouble with this concept so allow me to make it simple for you:

Being classified taxonomically and genetically as an ape doesn't mean acting like lesser apes is ok. As a species we are more advanced than that. We are humans first, and apes second.

australopithecus wrote:Humans are animals. An animal is any organism that isn't bacteria, plant or fungi. Humans fall under this catagory.

To be picky, you missed the Archaea and Protista, but I'm guessing that would have hurt their timy little brains!

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." - Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

This comes from the arse end of a debate that veered in the direct of cecal valves of the Italisn wall lizard. Playing the part of the creotard in this scene is a man who is a 100% biblical literalist who claims to have a degree in 'general science' yet claimed there were "no ekaryotes on the ark".

I'm suggesting that the genes were already there, just not expressed.

No, what you are suggesting is that the genes were not only being expressed in the parent population, but also the entire genus. A genus that contains herbivarous species without cecal valves. Why should P. sicula only express this supposed hidden gene only after changing diets, yet members of the same ancestral lineage that actually would benefit from cecal vavles not express it? Yeah, clear evidence for design that is.

When DNA code for pre-existing conditions, that is evidence of design, not random mutations. It's like a car that has a spare tire and a lug wrench in the trunk just in case it gets a flat.

Except the gene wasn't present, hidden or expressed. It was not pre-existing in the species or the genus.

In order to accumulate random mutations to develop a functional system, it will require millions of years.

Clearly not seeing as the cecal vavles evolved convergently in 30 years. But define functioning system. I define it as a system that has a function that works. Cecal valves work, they do the job of slowing digestion in order for bacteria to matabolise cellulose.

Not lost, but dormant, or not expressed; just as Anthony has suggested.

I suggested no such thing. I was merely doing what you should have done and read the publication YOU posted. A publication that had nothing to do with cecal valve genes I might add. There is no documented gene for cecal valves either hidden or dormant in the P. sicula genome. Deal with it.

This shift to a predominantly plant-based diet has resulted in the dramatic evolution of intestinal morphology. Morphological analysis of preserved specimens shows the presence of cecal valves (Fig. 4) in all individuals, including a hatchling (26.4-mm snout-vent length, umbilical scar present) and a very young juvenile (33.11-mm snout-vent length) examined from Pod MrÃ„Âaru. These valves are similar in overall appearance and structure to those found in herbivorous lacertid, agamid, and iguanid lizards (13, 14) and are not found in other populations of P. sicula (13) or in P. melisellensis. Cecal valves slow down food passage and provide for fermenting chambers, allowing commensal microorganisms to convert cellulose to volatile fatty acids (15, 16). Indeed, in the lizards from Pod MrÃ„Âaru, nematodes were common in the hindgut but absent from individuals from Pod KopiÃ…Â¡te. The fact that <1% of all currently known species of squamates have cecal valves (13, 14) illustrates the unusual nature of these structures in this population. The evolution of these structures has likely gone hand in hand with a novel association between P. sicula on Pod MrÃ„Âaru and a set of microorganisms assuring the digestion of cellulose as is suggested by the presence of nematodes in the hindgut of individuals from Pod MrÃ„Âaru.

So, Michael are you suggesting that the gene for cecal valves is dormant in the entire squamate order, but oly expressed in less that 1% of them? Even though there are members of the order that are herbivorous yet still dont express the gene even though it would be beneficial?

You like to bring up odds a lot, well how do you like those odds?

If you truly believe this lizard did not have the information to code for in its DNA, then surely you believe in miracles.

It's not a matter of belief, the species did not have the cecal valve gene. it's demonstrable. Less than 1% of the order the species belongs to has the gene, and this includes the many herbivorous squamates. We're not the ones proposing modern life spontaneously generated fully formed out of nothing. We propose mechanisms for the origin and diversity of life, mechanisms that arte supported overwhelmingly by the scientific community, yet you think you know better because you can't believe it works. Well though shit. The universe does not revolve around what you believe or your scientific illiteracy. You have proved time and time again that you know nothing about anything save what you paraphrase from AiG or other creotard websites.

Think about it. Here is a sort of true story scenario:

Here is a population of lizards reproducing after its kind struggling to survive and hardly any insects to eat, but many plants to munch on. Of course there are mutations upon mutations for each generation, and lo and behold, out of the blue, these mutations create cecal valves and morphological differences to help digest and eat plant food. Lets forget the magic wand, "natural selection" for now and concentrate on the other magic wand, mutations.

As Mark already called, your personal incredulity shines through. If you can't understand it, or get your head around it then poor you. That is entirely your problem. It is not, nor ever will it be, a problem for evolutionary theory. Get over it.

If life was proven to be complex and life only comes from life, would atheists believe in God? Of course not.

Firstly, you'd have to define organic life at it's most absolute basic form. We have. Self replicating nucleotides. These can and do form and are subject to mutation, variation, replication and natural selection. Job done.

Until there is evidence of god, and not vauge ''x couldn't exist without a designer, therefore that designer is (my)god'', but empirical, testable and falsifiable evidence of any gods, then of course atheists wont believe in them.

The evolutionary timescale would be "millions of years", not thousands for goo-to-you evolution to occur.

Atheists are on the dark side of things, they want to be the negation and destruction of the essence of everything.

Er...no. Atheism is lack of belief in deities. Nothing more. It is simply an opinion on reality that a few people share. There is no central dogma, no command centre and no atheist belief system. Atheists as a group don't want anything. Individual atheists want different things. Your blatent strawman representation of what atheism just shows you up to be extremely ignorant or exetremely intellectually dishonest.

They are not constructive as they are not based on facts. They are simply the most unscientific people on earth

Again, your bias proves absolutely nothing. Not based on facts? What facts? Atheism is an opinion, and unlike theism, at least has intellectual honesty. Disbelief is the only honest position to take when there is no evidence. There are no facts.

They want to affirm and make false theorems based on their beliefs and not on their reason.

ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF. Seriously, strawman arguments are not valid arguments. You name one false theory based on some supposed atheistic belief? Gravity perhaps? Maybe atomic or germ theory? Let's cut the crap, you mean evolutionary theory don't you? Be honest enough to say what you mean.

Yes, atheism is a kind of false religion as it is an anti-thesis of it

No. Just no. Atheism is not a belief that there is no gods, just a lack of belief in gods. By your logic a lack of belief in the tooth fair or unicorns are also religions and faith based positions.

It tries to prove what cannot be proven, giving affirmation without any back-up foundation or experimentation

No. No rational atheist has ever tried to prove there is no god because a rational atheist would know 2 things:

1) Nothing outside of mathmatics is/can be proven.2) There is no evidence either way.

Seriously, you lack a basic understanding on what atheism is yet you feel willing to spread your false understanding nonetheless. That makes you either ignorant or a liar, you can choose which one appeals to you more.

Oh, and Einstein, by his own admission, was not a theist. It's a well documented fact and that you assert he was is another blatent lie.

Today, scientist have proven that things may evoluate but remain in their own group of species: ie a reptile doesn't become a anthropod etc.

No one, in the whole of the history of evolutionary theory has ever claimed a reptile would ever evolve into a arthropod. You are confusing taxonomic catagories. Reptile and arthropoda are not species, they are a class and phylum respectively. No population of any species would or could evolve into an extant species, class, order or phylum. That would invalidate evolutionary theory

Given millions of years and the right selecgive pressures species can evolve into knew species and new classes and orders of organism can arise, but what can't happen is an already existing species evolving into another already existing species or taxonomic classification.

You show a rather large and glaring ignorance as to what evolutionary theory is, and I find it hugely ironic that you have the nerve to tell Mark to get an education. I dare you to tell me the same, and FYI, I do have an education in biology.

If you want to debate honestly then leave your misrepresentations of the theory at the door otherwise you'll just look like an idiot.

So the theory that we are just issue from the apes has never been and will never be accepted amongst the genius... only amongst the ignorants

So you're calling 99% of career biologists ignorant are you? Pray tell, what is your qualification in the field of biology?

Do you know that our DNA has got more in common with mouses than with apes? Sorry, Darwin...

No, it really doesn't.

We shared between 90-95% of our DNA with Chimps which are our closest extant related species. We share about 85% of our DNA with mice, that's a 5-10% difference.

Now pay attention, because this might confuse you but now I'm going to support my claims with evidence: